Re: [PATCH v2] iio: light: tsl2591: return actual error from probe IRQ failure

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 10:26:02 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 10:25:09AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 06:23:45PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:  
> > > On Mon, 18 May 2026 16:43:09 +0100
> > > Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, 18 May 2026 16:40:48 +0100
> > > > Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260518094311.2000-1-sozdayvek%40gmail.com
> > > > 
> > > > Does completely removing dev_err_probe() here drop the deferred probe reason
> > > > tracking?
> > > > While this patch successfully fixes the return code, dev_err_probe() also
> > > > records the deferral reason in debugfs via device_set_deferred_probe_reason()
> > > > when ret is -EPROBE_DEFER.
> > > > Could we keep the diagnostic tracking by returning the result of
> > > > dev_err_probe() directly instead?
> > > >         if (ret)
> > > >                 return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret, "IRQ request error\n");
> > > > 
> > > > Andy, what do you think?  
> > > Andy?
> > > 
> > > This is a change you might have asked for, but sashiko is correctly noting
> > > that we might loose a deferred reason even if the print is otherwise useless.  
> > 
> > Incorrectly. IRQ core prints an error via dev_err_probe(). Did I miss something?  
> 
> I'm referring to implementation of devm_request_result() in kernel/irq/devres.c.
> 
Oops. I almost lost this one. Patchwork had my back though.

Applied.

Jonathan